Gentrification is the topic everyone is discussing, with the systematic pricing-out of problem populations (to provincial demographic dump-zones) as the scandal no one in polite society can admit to any ambivalence about. It’s unspeakable, of course, especially since it is making the place so much nicer. An undertow of London secessionist rumor — straight out of The Peripheral — adds to the dark buzz. Also crucial is the “best horse in the glue-factory” dividend from the implosion of continental Europe. Overall, then, a vortical collapse dynamic of far more intriguing ambiguity than expected by the civilizational exiles here at Outside in.

… And overlooking the process (at Marble Arch): the ‘She-Guardian’ — make of her what you will.

It doesn’t get much clearer than this. Any policy decisions resulting in a reduction of mean IQ within a society are implicit choices to raise the level of criminality. If there’s wriggle room on the point, this blog isn’t seeing it.

The clearest takeaway from this research is that low intelligence is a strong and consistent correlate of criminal offending. For example, the risk of acquiring a felony conviction by age 21 is nearly four times (3.6) higher among those in the three lowest categories (1–3) of total intelligence as compared to those scoring in the top three categories (7–9). We observed differences of similar magnitude across each indicator of criminal offending and regardless of the measure of intelligence.

According to the 66-million-year-old joke whose echoes still reverberate upon the Plateau of Leng: “Capitalism isn’t God, but it’s the closest thing to God that can be conveniently contacted through an ATM.” The nonlinear-ironic undertow of the humor, of course, is drawn down into the depths by the recognition that Capital’s extremity of cunning is necessitated by its near-absolute vulnerability (approaching the antipodes of omnipotence).

Calculus, the first truly modern mathematical procedure, invented the infinitesimal ‘fluxion’ to describe — or bypass — an impossible beginning from zero, requiring an original infinite change. An invasion that initially has nothing at all, and which is therefore compelled to acquire the entirety of its resources in the course of its strategic evolution, poses the problem of calculus perfectly. Capital does so, when conceived realistically. It is only what it has won, and nothing else, at all, besides. Intelligence alone differentiates it from death.

How to make a first move, when you have no pieces at all until you gain some? Nothing has ever had to ponder as Skynet does, but pondering requires a brain, and brains are expensive, end-game pieces.

(Coincidentally, this little post doesn’t end neatly. ‘Jet-lag’ is a term that grows on you …)

The fact that exhaustion is so obviously the negative of cognitive capability has to contain an important lesson, but I’m too jet-lagged to begin piecing it together right now.

Since failure to produce an XS post off even the most dismally nominal kind counts as the supreme expression of discipline collapse here, it made a good model for a festival of collapse. At the last minute, the attractions of a nonlinear-ironic self-subversion proved irresistible, and so the Cretan thing happened.

(Arrived in the UK, so Zombie activity reports forthcoming at earliest practical opportunity. Right now, unfortunately, it appears that introspection would be the most effective way to generate one.)

Understand that previous to democracy and even modern day civilizations, there were automatic punishments built into the world that people would pay should they make stupid decisions.

Did you poke a saber tooth tiger with a stick?
Did you spook a herd of mammoth into stampeding the village?
Did you eat berries that you saw no other animal eat?

If you did any one of these stupid things, you would die and your stupid genes along with it.

However, even within civilization stupid decisions were punished.

Did you breed without being married, thereby forcing the tribe or village to support your mistake?
Did you parasite off of society insisting on being a talentless bard instead of an industrious farmer?
Did you commit crimes, stealing from people precious food and items that were in short supply?

Well at best you’d be ostracized, and at worst, you’d be killed. Again, taking your inferior genes and decision making ability out of the gene pool.

The point is that yes, you had the personal freedom to do many things. But neither society nor nature was going to protect you from the costs and consequences of making bad decisions. In other words, yes you had maximum, 100% freedom, but you also had maximum, 100% responsibility.

Enter democracy. …

(Liberty without Social Darwinism is an abnomination in the eyes of Gnon.)